Re: TECH: use fetchmail algorithm to select header address to verify

[Yakov Shafranovich <research@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:

> On Mon, Sep 06, 2004 at 09:32:39PM -0400,
>  Yakov Shafranovich <research@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote 
>  a message of 49 lines which said:
>
>
> > Now if all of this is stated in the RFC directly, what exactly is
> > the IPR that is being claimed here? This seems to me explicit in the
> > RFC itself.
>
>
> We all agree that the patent claim from Microsoft is almost certainly
> obvious / frivolous / invalid. Almost all software patents
> are. Microsoft is not known for interesting contributions to computer
> science, only for massive patent filing (see
> http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=/netahtml/srchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=6,775,781.WKU.&OS=PN/6,775,781&RS=PN/6,775,781
> which basically patents every program like sudo or calife).
>
> But it does not solve the issue: should we take the risk? Should we
> move to the standards track with such a threat, which will probably
> deter many people?

In the past there have been at least two cases where a WG moved ahead 
with the standard and disregarded the IPR claims as frivilious: IDN and 
Walid patent, and IPSec and UUNet's patent. Therefore, one optionl could 
be to consider the IPR claims as meanigless, especially in light of 
prior art, and move on.

Of course, that only works if deployment is not hindered. Based on the 
Apache and Debian statements, as well as others, it may be too late for 
that.

Yakov